View Full Version : Whose the biggest Nuclear Threat?

Gayle in MD
07-05-2006, 05:45 PM
North Korea, Iran, or bin Laden. The two former terrorist experts from the ALEX unit, (one of them was the former top guy, the one who named the Special Terrorist Intelligence Unit, Alex, after his son, Michael Sauea, or Sauer, wish I could remember the other guy, Hesselmeyer maybe?) in Virginia said today, that bin Laden was our most dangerous Nuclear threat. This, unfortunately, was during a discussion over why the hell this administration has closed down the special ALEX unit, and lumped it in with other Intelligence people in the CIA.

We had a slew of experts, who were known for having a real case of the A$$...totally hell bent on getting bin Laden, ate, slept and drank al Qaeda, and almost had him atleast seven different times before 9/11, so they must of been doing something right, but, the Bush Administration pushed them all out. Now, they've closed down the unit altogether, something about bin Laden not being the main focuss! Guess we already knew that?

Russia has loads of un-accounted for nukes. They love us so much, though, I'm sure they wouldn't think of selling them to bin Laden, who has money to burn! We have terrorist cells all over this country. I can't remember the estimates, right now, IIRC, it was about two thousand. But, first things first, we must make sure that Iraqis get their deomcracy, even if 48% of them DO want to kill us, and their top man wants amnesty for the killers of our troops.

Glad I've got my Hazmet suits, plenty of water and food laid up, and air tight inserts and caps for all the doors and windows in my basement, and with all that preparation, I'll probably be on the boat when it hits! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Wonder what life would have been like if we had never had to worry about Nuclear threats?

Gayle in Md.

07-05-2006, 05:59 PM
The saddest fact Gayle, is that when this does occur and this country REALLY becomes martial law and basically without any financial, business and corporate(your daily job)...only then will these bozos here actually feel the pain and "maybe" agree that this one man has done it again. He took the towers with mere hundreds of thousands of dollars. How anyone can believe he's not capable of buying a nuke from a sleazy group of sellers, is really pathetic. I say this with as much sincerity as I can possibly state it, "All of our daily lives can change with one puny, or really effective cloud of a nuclear cloud, and to follow the so-called leadership today, is outright dangerous!" That's reality, and it could happen as I typed this last period...sid

Gayle in MD
07-05-2006, 10:10 PM
True, and the contradiction of Wanted Dead Or Alive, then a few months later, after the push for an Iraq occupatio, "I don't know where he is, He's hiding, I don't think about him."

Well, I think about him every damn day. I am furious that we still haven't gotten him! As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing more important that getting him, and all the other terrorist cells around the world. I cannot believe that this bunch has closed down the most important deterrent to another, even more damaging attack on our country.

Then, just look at what Bush has done in the Middle East. I guess N.Korea does want to fire up everything they have, and get more, they see that we only occupy countries with no threat of having Nukes.

Going into Iraq was the worst strategic error of our times, the greatest misjudgement, the poorest planning, and most incompetent operation of war in history.

We're all going to pay a heavy price for it.

Gayle in Md.

07-06-2006, 06:00 AM
"I guess N.Korea does want to fire up everything they have, and get more, they see that we only occupy countries with no threat of having Nukes."

'Cept for Iran being hard cased at Isreal, I'm getting to understand their direction with their nukes. Bush has wimped out on all of the real threats. Some leadership...sid

Gayle in MD
07-06-2006, 06:28 AM
By the way, Martin, the guy's name is Scheuer. He was on several cable shows last night, and he said that closing the Alex Unit was Inexplicable, and extremely dangerous, since he, and he says most intel people would agree, that bin Laden is our greatest Nuclear Threat! He also said that Clinton nixed the opportunities they had to kill bL every time they could have, because Clinton believed that turning bL into a martyr would have only emboldened alQaeda, and increased their numbers. Well, obviously, he (Clinton) was wrong not to have gotten rid of bL, and some of what Scheuer is saying doesn't match what a few others have written on the subject, however, going into Iraq surely accomplished the same thing, more terrorists, we have emboldened their cause, and we still haven't gotten bin Laden! Only now, over 2500 troops are dead, who knows how many Iraqi women and children, we're training people who turn around and kill our people, and we're in huge debt, with degraded equipment, a worn out army, disgruntled allies, and no credibility.

Wouldn't it seem a simple deduction that our priorities should have been...
1. Get bin Laden, and seek out every cell we can find.
2. Build our allies...would have been a cinch after 9/11.
3. Clean up the UN.
4. Expand our technology defences to divert war heads, etc.
5. Continue to strengthen sanctions against Saddam, North
Korea and Iran with improved relations with allies.
6. Maintain our surplus, and cut pork barrel spending,
shrink government beaurocracy, instead, we've
expanded beaurocracy, and spending.
7. Build technology methods for securing our borders,
and crack down by deporting illegal aliens.
8. Use 9/11 to tighten our immigration policies.
9. Alter NAFTA and trade agreements to prevent abuses.
10. Expand America's Manufacturing industries, and conservation efforts with tax breaks based on improving conservation, cleaning up our environment, maintaining our job base here in America, and encouraging educational opportunities in technology and energy indepencence, and increase taxes on corporations which out-source, and hide money made in America, in the Carribbean, and elsewhere, in order to rip off America.

Well, now where can we find a president who would do these things, get out of bed with the greedy fascists corporate CEO Theives, and the Oil Cartel, and do what is right for America.

One would think that until we as Americans secure our election problems, and implement public funding for elections, corporate and government corruption will continue to flourish, degrade our children's future opportunities, dismantle programs designed to prevent corporate abuses and protect our environment, increase the chasm between the rich and the poor, and inusre more taxation of middle class America, without representation.

IMNSHO, election reform is the key, and the only candidate I know of who addressed this issue, was Ross Perro, a CEO himself!

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
07-06-2006, 06:30 AM
The Greatest Nuclear Threat? I'd have to say liberals and socialists.

Did you read the coverage of when N. Korea fired their long range missle, how we were ready to shoot it down if we had to? That takes technology...the stuff the libs and socialists are always out there protesting about.

These small renegade countries and groups understand only one thing---Fear. They don't suddenly become benevolent when you let them feel secure.


Gayle in MD
07-06-2006, 07:04 AM
How do you arrive at the conclusion that liberals are against us defending our country through technology? While I could agree that liberals are against pre-emptive attacks against nations which are of no immediate threat, to say that liberals are against technology which can make us safer in the face of nuclear attack, or any other kind of attack on our country, doesn't fly, IMO.

To say that renegade countries, as you put it, respond positively to fear, surely hasn't been the case. We've been threatenting renegade countries for five years or more, and what has it accomplished? Iran is building nukes, North Korea is building Nukes, Russia won't account for their nukes, fear certainly has no effect on suicide bombers, and terrorist cells, they're ready to die for their 13 virgins and the promise land.

Unless and until America can overcome its recent embarrassment of going off half cocked in Iraq, with so called faulty intelligence, while thumbing its nose at the rest of the world, and then failing to operate an occupation effectively, and find a way to re-build a base of allies who will stand beside us as we face the tyrants of the world together, what good does it accomplish to stick our noses into the middle of a country which is fighting its own civil war, at our expense? Even if Iraq turned itself into Shangrila, we would still be faced with Nuclear threats, but to be faced with nuclear threats from an invisible enemy, from no particular nation where we can respond, should surely be our first concern. NOT Iraq!

If Bush hadn't given free tax breaks to the oil cartel right here in our country for the last five years, while they gouge the hell out of Americans, and pressured them instead to produce alternative fuels, and spend a greater part of their profits on production, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

Now, because we are overextended in Iraq, and losing ground daily, Iran is building nukes, North Korea is firing off rockets, Somalia is under radical Islamist control, Afghanistan is getting worse, and Iraq isn't getting any better, and they're all thumbing their noses at us, and we STILL don't have bin Laden. We're dangerously in debt, our economy teetering on the brink of inflationary results, our soldiers and equipment worn down, and bin Laden is still leading his followers. Are we better off or safer now than we were before 9/11, I don't think so, do you? If this is the picture that emerges after six years of neoconservative policies, I don't think liberal policies are the problem!

BTW, did you read the failure rate we have on shooting down Missiles? You think Bush and Rumsfeld are spending money on improving that?
Gayle in Md.

07-06-2006, 08:52 AM
Gayle,Fran if I was the Pres of Iran I would be building Neuclear Bombs. The United States can't be trusted to not to invade Sovereign Countries. Iraq proves that.####

Gayle in MD
07-06-2006, 10:52 AM
I agree, how can we prevent other countries from having what we have? Defensive technology is the only answer, when you can't settle nuclear issues at the conference table, so we should put all our efforts there. Iraq is draining this country, and settles nothing. This is no time for long range unrealistic approaches to spread democracy! Former Secretary Madeline Albright said last night on Larry King, that we're facing a perfect storm, internationally.

Gayle in Md.

07-09-2006, 10:18 AM
Gayle I even spelled Nuclear like GWB speaks it and no one corrected my spelling.####

07-09-2006, 02:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Gayle I even spelled Nuclear like GWB speaks it and no one corrected my spelling.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry Dick, but you didn't even mis-spell it correctly. Perhaps you meant "Nucular"???????????

07-09-2006, 07:40 PM
I think we would ALL be a lot safer if nobody had WMDs- and I mean nuclear weapons.

Double standards.
GW maintains the right to 'pre-emptive'attack but denies the right to self defence in other countries [ Iran].
GW wants to keep the ME free from WMDs but neglects to mention that Israel has nuclear capability!
Iran can't have a nuclear weapon but the US has 13,000!- and is building more!
GW is for freedom but privacy is a thing of the past.
He is against leaks, but ............. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

The list is endless. People will be making jokes about GW for the next 20 years! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
There's SO much material.

Jon Stewart did a brilliant cover on the Miami 7. LOL I,ll find it for you. Its brilliant. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Got it. here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/26/tds-the-miami-seven/)

07-10-2006, 07:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I think we would ALL be a lot safer if nobody had WMDs- and I mean nuclear weapons.

<hr /></blockquote>

Q, Since we all know this isn't going to happen, would you prefer that anyone who wants nukes should have them? Would that make the world a safer place?

07-12-2006, 05:07 AM
Take away the threat of US agression and countries like NK/Iran have no reason to arm themselves.

Do you remember that GW said these countries were 'the axis of evil"?

That should make them feel secure.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

07-12-2006, 05:10 AM
Whose the biggest Nuclear Threat? <hr /></blockquote> Those in power whom Gayle regurgitates daily.


07-12-2006, 05:14 AM
Take away the threat of US agression and countries like NK/Iran have no reason to arm themselves.

Do you remember that GW said these countries were 'the axis of evil"?

That should make them feel secure. <hr /></blockquote> This should not be a news flash, but I am afraid it might be...IRAN AND NK HAVE BEEN BUILDING NUKES LONG BEFORE W BECAME PRESIDENT!. They did not just start up their nuke programs when they were declared part of the axis of evil.

All that was said for nothing however, because we all know, W is the anti-christ and responsible for all that is bad on planet earth.


07-12-2006, 05:20 AM
So what?
GW is Pres now -isn't he resposible for his own Govts actions.


07-12-2006, 05:23 AM
Your post was misleading in making someone believe Iran and NK were building nukes because of W, and that is the furthest from the truth. All they have done is continue what they set out to do many years before W.


Gayle in MD
07-12-2006, 07:18 AM
Yes, and he has diverted all our efforts to an unrealistic, unwinnable war for five years, weakening our standing in the world with his BS claims about SH's WMD's, while in the meantime, bin Laden, has increased his followers, Iran and North Korea have increased their possibilities for WMD's, and our people are dying daily in a Civil War for an unrealistic long range idea about spreading democracy to tribal people who don't have a clue about fighting for their own democracy! It's called failed policy, and the President sets the policy, hence, it's all Clinton's fault! LMAO!

Gayle in Md.